Re: Number of HBA's

I did not realize that was where you were going.  I agree, looking at some of 
the disk solutions/options that are out there one could reduce costs even more 
by implementing more disk and less tape.

Orville Lantto <orville.lantto AT DATATREND DOT COM> wrote:
I question why so many tape drives, tape drives are expensive. Perhaps
those backups should be going to disk storage pools on $ 500 disk drives
instead of buying more $15,000 tape drives. We make good money selling
those tape drives, but adding tape drives is the more expensive way to
accomplish the goal. I acknowledge that there are circumstances where a
backup must go direct to tape, but in today's climate of inexpensive disk,
perhaps less often than in the past.

Orville L. Lantto
Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com)
IBM Premier Business Partner
121 Cheshire Lane, Suite 700
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Email: Orville.Lantto AT datatrend DOT com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.



TSM_User
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
02/09/2005 09:12 PM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


To
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc

Subject
Re: Number of HBA's






"but why design to do that?" For the very practical reason that money
doesn't grow on trees.
If someone were to purchase and IBM 3584 with 12 LTO3 drives would we
suggest that they use 12 HBA's or 6 dual port HBA's? In most cases I
think not. There is a number of drives per HBA which should be met but it
is more site and situation specific than a rule. You should be aware of
how fast the drives can stream but you should also know how fast you need
them to go. You should not under size your solution but you should also
not oversize it either. Your point about database backup performance being
dependent on disk speed. This is yet another reason not to determine how
many drives per HBA you use simply based on the speed of the drive.


Orville Lantto wrote:
The point was that two HBAs for tape only provides bandwidth for two tape
drives with compressible data, not four. Many people seem to under
appreciate the bandwidth requirements of a properly designed tape system.
For database data, it is usually the disk that is to slow to achieve
optimum backup speeds. Yes, you can run the tape drive at a slower speed,
but why design to do that?

Orville L. Lantto
Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com)
IBM Premier Business Partner
121 Cheshire Lane, Suite 700
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Email: Orville.Lantto AT datatrend DOT com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.



"Loon, E.J. van - SPLXM"
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
02/09/2005 02:13 AM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


To
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc

Subject
Re: Number of HBA's






Hi Orville!
I don't think this is really necessary since LTO2. LTO1 performance does
suffer when you can't keep the drive streaming, but LTO2 and 3 adjust
their
tape speed if they detect that the amount of incoming data is too low. So
there should not be any back-hitching here...
Kindest regards,
Eric van Loon
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines


-----Original Message-----
From: Orville Lantto [mailto:orville.lantto AT DATATREND DOT COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 21:33
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Number of HBA's


Don't forget drive compression when making throughput calculations! 80
MB/sec * 4 (compression of text data) =320 MB/second as the maximum
available bandwidth per LTO-3 drive.

Good Luck keeping ONE of these beasts streaming with high compression!



Orville L. Lantto
Datatrend Technologies, Inc. (http://www.datatrend.com)
IBM Premier Business Partner
121 Cheshire Lane, Suite 700
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Email: Orville.Lantto AT datatrend DOT com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.



Ben Bullock
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"
02/08/2005 02:10 PM
Please respond to
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


To
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc

Subject
Re: Number of HBA's






The documents say you are supposed to NOT have SAN and
tape
devices running on the same HBAs.

I would expect you would use 2 HBAs to connect to the SAN
and 2
to connect to the tape drives. 2 cards have more than enough bandwidth
to support the 4 LTO3 drives.

Ben


-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Stef Coene
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:03 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Number of HBA's

Hi,

For a setup with:
- 4 x LTO3 drives in a IBM 3583 library
- 1 oracle database server: 40GB/1hr archives that needs to backuped
(AIX
LPAR) over the SAN
- 1 TSM server (AIX LPAR)

What with the HBA's? Is it needed to split the tape and disk activity
and to put 4 HBA's in the oracle DB (2 HBA's for disk activitiy and 2
for tape)?

Idem for the TSM server. 2 HBA's or 4 HBA's?


Stef


**********************************************************************
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site:
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain
confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If
you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or
any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other
action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and
may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify
the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message.
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its
employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission
of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in
receipt.
**********************************************************************


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.